Williams v Page gets worse...

[76229]

As I understand it, the Robbie Williams house has already had lots of alterations when Winner owned it, by contrast the Tower House has had few alterations from its original state (except the dispersal of furniture etc), just has been gradually restored. When you make actual alterations near a house that presumably hasn't had the foundations disturbed since it was built 150+ years back, especially on North London clay, you need to be pretty careful so i can understand Jimmy taking an interest in the work.

 

So (while assuming the stuff about him hanging around the garden is an exaggeration / inaccurate), I can understand him at least keeping an eye on it, he has a right to do that surely.

[woz70]

1 hour ago, Boleskinner said:

No need to apologise, but my answer is no.

If you don't want to read the article don't click on the link, you have a choice,

I can't let your political beliefs dictate what I do.

I ask you to respect my decision.

All the best.

 

It's not about politics.  It's about morals, really.

Hacking dead people's phones to sell stories is not political, it's simply abhorrent.  This is what this paper does.  Check out the Milly Dowler case.

If you don't know about it I also urge you to read about the Hillsborough disaster and The Sun's role in attempting to vilify and lay the blame the many football fans who died for decisions made by the police that led to the disaster.  That isn't politics, it's premeditated lying at the expense of grieving families in order to sway public opinion and make a profit on the back of a tragedy.  This is, and always has been, The Sun's agenda.  

If you ask for a copy of The Sun in Liverpool today, more than twenty years after Hillsborough, you'll still be either laughed at or told where to stick it.

These are just two of innumerable examples of The Sun's 'journalism'.  It is constantly having to publish apologies and retract stories either because they have simply been made up, or are ridiculously inaccurate.

Lying and making up stories to sell papers is The Sun's default position.  Thankfully it is now having to resort to giving away free copies to keep up its circulation figures.

If you feel that you must post an article from The Sun in the future, could it be respectfully requested that you check the veracity of the story with another source, if at all possible, before posting it?

 

[Mook]

Cheers, Woz.

I posted a load of links for Boleskinner in order that he could make a more informed decision in the future but site admin decided they would delete my (perfectly diplomatic) post for whatever reason.

As Boleskinner has stated, it's their site, not mine so they can leave links to disgusting rags like The S*n up, whilst deleting my ones to The BBC & The Guardian.